Divorce Has Consequences
But most people didn’t think about them before Judith Wallerstein.
By Sandra Blakeslee

Posted Friday, July 13, 2012, at 11:12 AM ET

“I began to think about divorce not with the notion that children are necessarily damaged by it, but with the idea that today’s children might negotiate their way through and come out as charming and open as Karen. It was an intriguing idea.”
So, Judy went to the Berkeley library to see what had been written about how children react to divorce. And found nothing.

At the time my child was conceived—age 21—I was a pro-life atheist. Also somewhat rare.

Honestly, it was the experience of watching my son grow—with so many advantages compared to most children of unwed mothers (and indeed many children overall) and yet with so many disadvantages compared to the what my mother and father together were able to give me—that launched me into the marriage debate.

Adults at the time were telling themselves so many lies—so much “happy talk” about divorce and freedom—designed to reassure rather than face the reality of what disintegrating family ties were doing to our children.

The social science evidence on marriage and family structure was important in breaking through those self-deceptions. Social science evidence continues to be extremely important and influential—that’s why the attacks on Professor Mark Regnerus’ new study continue to be so fierce.

The New York Times is at it again, making poor Katie Roiphe feel bad about herself. Over the weekend the Times published a piece by Jason DeParle making the entirely obvious, yet frequently denied, observation that children are a lot better off when they are reared by both parents than when a single mother has to make do on her own. They could’ve headlined the story “Dan Quayle Was Right,” if The Atlantic hadn’t beaten them to it 19 years ago.

In the last few weeks the experience of each has revealed publicly in a special way the world we live in now.

They each have been publicly exposed to the “wall of hatred” that descends upon you if you dare to oppose same-sex marriage.

The silencing of dissent through the stigmatizing of dissenters used to happen behind the scenes in professional networks. But it has now broken out in broad daylight.

I have to pause to remind you, and myself, before going further that in many places in this country it is very hard to be a gay person. In pointing out this new public phenomenon–the use of stigmatizing hatred as a deliberate tactic by activists to stifle public dissent—I am not attempting to equate, much less deny, the suffering of gay people over the years.

All unjust suffering demands our compassion. In particular, those of us who are Christians can never respond to hatred with hating. (That turning the other check stuff really stinks sometimes doesn’t it?).

It’s a special community we are building here of people who understand and care about the most important things: life, marriage and religious liberty.

I hope you, like me, celebrated the Fourth of July as John Adams hoped:

“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

While other factors might be responsible – the timing of the shift of support in North Carolina coincides well with the candidates expressing their beliefs about marriage, and this is why it is reasonable to suggest that this is where Romney gained the lead – and the President lost it.